Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 07-17-08 Special Meeting u L L City of Carmel Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Special Meeting Thursday, July 17, 2008 The special meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Thursday, July 17, 2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Cannel, fudiana. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members in attendance were James Hawkins, Earlene Plavchak, Madeleine Torres and alternates Jay Domlan andAlan Potasnik, thereby establishing a quorum. Christine Barton-Holmes and Mike Hollibaugh represented the Department of Community Services. Jolm Molitor and Bryan Babb, Legal Counsels, were also present. Mr. Molitor gave the Legal Report. A petition from Martin Marietta (Item 1h) was coupled with consideration by the Board of a settlement agreement that has been reached between Martin Marietta, Mayor Brainard and the City of Cannel regarding the Board's previous denial of the surface limestone operation at the same property a couple of years ago. Three other clainls were also brought by Martin Marietta ina Pederallawsuitthat was fiIedin the Spring of 2006. Since the consideration ofthese is connected, in fact the consideration of the underground limestone operation is a provision of the settlement agreement; he recommended the.Board defer voting on the settlement agreement until after the Public Hearing. Mr. Babb would describe the settlement agreement. Mr. Babb talked about how they had gotten to this point and why, to this date, the City and Mayor Brainard, in his individual capacity, have approved the settlement agreement. In April 2006, the Mueller South open pit application was presented and ultimately denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. About a month later a Federal lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit had four counts. The first count was a Section 1983 claim that was aimed against the Mayor in his individual and official capacity and against the City in general. The second claim was for a breach ofthe Hazel Dell Agreement which was executed in 1997. The third was an inverse condemnation claim. The fourth was an actual challenge to the BZA Board's detem1ination to deny the open pit application. There were also some constitutional deprivation allegations that were blanketed on top of that. With respect to the Section 1983 claim, 'there were two things. First, the Mayor stood up at the meeting to testify and recommended the Board deny the application. That was a deprivation of constitutional rights and tainted the procedure. There were also aHegations with respect to the Mayor's interaction with the Department of Community Services. By Statute, the Mayor is responsible for running that Department. With respect to the recommendation from the Department of Community Services, that somehow the Mayor had interfered in that process and required that report to recommend unfavorable consideration. Those same sorts of allegations were blanketed on top ofthe challenge to the BZA Board's decision. Because the first and fourth counts were inter-related, after a period of discovery they set about moving for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and on the inverse condemnation claim. With respect to the breach of contract claim, there was a statement in the 1997 contract which essentially said that Carmel would not take any actions to limit Martin Marietta's mining operations. There were several allegations that were alleged in support of a breach of that covenant. Most prominently were Carmel's attempted enactment ofthe Mining Ordinance Page lof9 Cartnel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17,2008 and the denial of the Mueller South open pit application. With respect to the inverse condemnation claim, U" it was essentially not that Carmel had actually condemned anything that Martin Marietta owned or leased, but the BZA Board's ruling somehow inversely condemn~d their ability to maximize profit from the property. The arguments the City made to the Federal judge with respect to the breach of contract claim with respect to the Mining Ordinance were that in 1997 Carmel did not have jurisdiction ofthe area of the mining operation. Cannel did not have the ability to legislatively limit the operation. In fact, later when they enacted the Mining Ordinance, that was a legislative limitation. In 1997 the City could not have foregone a right that it did not have. The judge believed the argument partly, but not fully, so sununary judgment was granted in part with respect to the Mueller South property, but not with respect to the original Martin Marietta property. Because summary judgment was denied, they were headed to a bench trial on that particular claim. Because of the parties I agreement in the contract itself, there would be a bench trial, not a jury trial. The bench trial would ultimately be heard by Judge Hamilton, who for all intents and purposes in his order essentially said that it was breached. With respect to all the damages, they were looking at a multi-million dollar judgment. With respect to the inverse condemnation claim, they took the position that under well-established law and the law that essentially both parties had argued, because there was already a sand and gravel operation on Mueller South that Martin Marietta was deriving economic benefit from it. As a matter of law there could not have been an inverse condemnation claim. That argument was unavailing and summary judgment was denied with re~pect to that. Not only was the City potentially facing a multi,..million dollar claim with respect to the breach of contract, they were also looking at an inverse condemnation claim that would have to go to a jury trial. Fact of matter was he thought they could have appealed both ofthem and would have had good success in the inverse condemnation claim. He felt the chances oftuming around the breach of contract claim were fifty-fifty. They had not gotten to the 1983 claim or the challenge to the BZA Board's decision. As stewards ofland 0 use in this commuuity, the Boanl should take this application and decision into aecount, as wel1 as the . City and Mayor Brainard. As fiscally sound and as well-managed as the City is, could it absorb a multi- million dollar judgment? It was not a chance they were willing to advise the City to take. That was one of the primary things they were looking at in reconunending the City and Mayor Brainard settle this. There are certain rights that Martin Marietta is giving up in an effort to compromise. The primary right is to expand their mining operations north of 106th Street on the Mueller North property. The settlement agreement does have a section that addresses that That is s'omething they did not have to do and probably would not do ifthe City continued to litigate. There are other uses they could seek beyond an open pit mine on Mueller North. They have essentially given up the rights to do all of that, which is very significant. The commitments they have agreed to enter into are substantial and detailed. They are not everything the City wanted, but they are certainly conunitments that are greater than originally promised. The conunitments are similar to and parallel. to those obligations and duties under the Mining Ordinance. The Indiana Supreme Court did eventually reverse the Trial Court and the Court Of Appeals decision with respect to the validity of the Mining Ordinance. The hldiana Supreme Court said that the Mining Ordinance is legally sound and can go forward. The only problem with that is that it has to stand side-by- side with the Federal order that also says that the Mining Ordinance in respect to some of that property is a breach. This was one of those situations that begged for settlement. It is a global settlement that is trying to create an atmosphere where the mining operation of Martin Marietta can get along peacefully with not only the City, but the Kingswood residents and other surrounding neighborhoods. Martin Marietta has been working overtime with the Kingswood residents to strike some sort of a deal. They will discuss that (IJ'.. in detail later. The end result is that with respect to the Kingswood position, it should be favorable. An important detail for the BZA Board, with respect to Kingswood, is that one of the goals for the Mayor and the City was that Kingswood would have a voice in this process. They spent an entire day in Magistrate Baker's settlement chambers. It was vel)' unusual that Kingswood had attorneys and representatives from the neighborhood present. Carmel agreed to pay a significant amount of their attorney feesin order to Page 2 of9 u ~ u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17, 2008 make sure they had a voice in the process. It was expensive and very detailed and complicated trying to prepare for that all-day hearing. The fees were at least $30,000, ifnot greater. Although they did not sign the settlement agreement, there were some concessions made from both the City and from Martin Marietta based on their participation. In an effort to also try to mitigate and increase the value of the neighborhood, there is also a covenant in the settlement agreement for the City to pay for $30,000 of signage in the neighborhood. There was an effort on the part of the City to make sure this neighborhood was taken care of, because they are in a bit of a difficult position. That was a primary consideration of the BZA Board the last time. Ultimately the commitments will control the mining operation. Martin Marietta will not mine north of 106th Street, except for the operations that are currently ongoing. When that operation concludes, that piece of property will be donated to the City. There will be a lake in place that will serve to recharge the City's aquifer. This seems to be a situation that cries out for settlement and compromise so that everybody can move forward. He felt the worst thing for Kingswood and other neighborhoods were the years of uncertainty that would follow if this lawsuit was not settled. If it is not settled, they would be litigating for a year or more and-appealing it. They are a corporation that is trying to maximize their profits and they have lease interests for property to mine and make money. If fiuiher applications are heard and denied, there might also be more appeals. This is an effort to tly to put it all to bed and to let Martin Marietta focus on doing their work as efficiently and non-disruptively ~ possible. There has been a lot of time and effort from all parties that have gone into this settlement agreement. 'This Board needs to make an independent assessment and vote on the petition. There are good reasons why the Mayor and City settled. Mr. Molitor again recommended the Board move to defer any vote on the settlement agreement until they heard the evidence on the underground petition, which had never been heard by this Board. Mr. Hawkins moved to defer the vote on the settlement agreement until after the hearing on the underground mining had been heard. The motion was seconded by Mrs_ Torres and APPROVED 5-0. H. Public Hearing: lh. Mueller Property South Underground Limestone Operation The applicant seeks the following special use approval: Docket No. 08030032 SU Appendix A: Use Table Underground mining in residential district The 96-acre site is located at 5345 East l06lh Street and is zoned Sl/ResidentiaI. Filed by H. Wayne Phears of Ph ears and Moldovan for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Present for the Petitioner: ZeffWeiss, attorney with Ice Miller. Also present were Wayne Phears, attorney from Martin Marietta; John Tiberi and Ed Gehr with Martin Marietta. M. Weiss gave an overview from their perspective. They appreciated the hard work everyone had put into this petition and all the petitions over the past several years. They understood the overall difficulty and appreciated everyone's time and efforts. In the settlement agreement, they tried to follow and match up with the ordinance that the City had worked to enact. He thought the Staff had put together a chart comparing the settlement and the ordinance. Their proposal has accountability. There are criteria and factors they have agreed to follow that are similar to the ordinance. They have agreed to follow "best practices". As technology changes, they will try to change to minimize any impact on the conununity. John Tiberi, as President in this region, has committed to an open-door policy to meet with Mike Hollibaugh, representatives ofthe Staff, and also members oft.he adjoining communities who would have an issue to discuss_ They want to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Martin Marietta desires to be a good corporate citizen. Martin Marietta is a significant Cannel landowner and values its relationship with Page3of9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17, 2008 the City and with its neighbors. They believe they have a process and a procedure that works for the City, the neighbors and Martin Marietta. This has been the most remarkable, complex and interesting case he has been involved in. It has addressed a lot of competing interests and gray areas. The expansion of 96th Street with the bridge over the White River brought a lot of housing expansion and community activity in the area of the mine. They recognized and appreciated the Mayor's role in trying to do what is right for the community and help them work together to respect everyone's rights. They were very pleased they were able to come to this meeting with the support of the majority of Kingswood, the support from the Staff mid the greater community, to achieve everyone's goals. Wayne Phears stated they had attended a large group meeting Monday, July 14 with the City attorneys and the Kingswood Homeowners Association. The Kingswood participants asked a lot of good questions mId there was a lot of interaction. (He swore himself in to be a witness.) The application for the underground mine is confined by 106th Street on the north, Hazel Dell Parkway on the east, the internal Martin Marietta operations on the west, and the face of the existing pit on the south. Those who attended the tour saw the existing face and the underground application. The underground mine would be accessed through a different portal than the existing face. It is essentially in the area of the open pit operation. As part of the process, Martin Marietta gave up a couple of significant items. Under the 1997 Hazel Dell Agreement, Martin Marietta has the right to mine all ofthe property itthen owned. That was at the heart of Judge Hamilton's decision on summary judgment. That is significant because Carmel Sand located behind Kingswood was property they ovmed in 1997 and would be grandfathered under the Hazel Dell Agreement. One of the things they have given up i.n the settlement agreement is the right to mine that area. They have also agreed to withdraw the fifth application which was the mining underground on Mueller North. Acombination oftheir grandfathered right-to-mine and Mueller North would have meant they would have mined everything under the Carmel Sand lake area inunediately adjacent to Kingswood. Instead, the Mueller North sand and gravel application that was approved a couple of years ago will be finished up, the area will be reclaimed and it will be donated to the City of Carnlel. The City will get the entirety of the lake plus he believed a 75-foot perimeter to be used for conservation uses. This is satisfactory to the neighborhood, The City is excited because it sits over the City wells and aquifer. They will be working with the community on the buffer regarding some lmld transactions. The buffers are not a part of this application. This is an unusual application because the underground mine has no impact. They access it from the same 96th Street entrance. They had spent about $700,000 recently cleaning up and improving the entranceway. A wheel-washer was installed to try to remove some of the dust and clean up 96th Street. This was not part of any commitment, but was done voluntarily. They will be using the same access, the same equipment and the same Mueller land. All ofthe.traffic circulates internally. They will not be introducing any new processes or equipment. Theproperty, bounded on the north by 106tl1 Street and on the east by Hazel Dell, is completely surroun!ied by mining property. Because they will ultimately be giving away the Mueller North property and the Cam1el Sand property, that will also eliminate future land uses that would be adverse to the community. He believed the Staff was going to discuss the comparison report of the commitments made by Martin Marietta to the Mining Ordinance. The commitments are often stricter than the Ordinance. They had used the Mining Ordinance as a guide for their commitments. The criteria in Section 21.4; number one is the suitability of the premises for the proposed special use. The use is surrounded by mining. The second is the economic factors; cost benefits to the community and anticipated affect on surrounding property values. There is no reason to believe the underground operation has had any adverse affect on surrounding property values. They submitted an affidavit from Mike Lady on that issue. The third factor is compatibility with existing uses. -Again, they are surrounded by mining uses. They have not had issues on the underground mine. Blasting underground is confined to a much, much smaller blast. It is maybe 20 percent less than the Page 4 of9 u lJ u u L u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17, 2008 size of a blast on an open pit. In an underground there are giant pillars and rooms. The blasting is between the pillars within the rooms;' The blast is all contained. There is no noise or dust. The fourth factor is the adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage, Police and Fire protection. They do not have any discharges that are troublesome. The Water Utility Department has monitored all the prior, applications very closely and they do not have any issues. They have ongoing agreements to cooperate on monitoring. Those on the tours saw the monitoring valves that are in place to track water levels. The last criterion is the affect of the special use on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There would be nothing changed. It is the same entranceway. The Staff Report makes note of various submittals and he would like those subnrittals incorporated into the record, as well as the Staff Report. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the petition. Favorable: Chris Wolcott, 5089 Kingswood, President Kingswood Homeowners Association. (He is an attorney, but has not been legal counsel in all this litigation.) Kingswood has openly remonstrated primarily against the Martin Marietta open pit mining on Mueller South property. Despite the appearance of open hostility, both Kingswood and Martin Marietta have had ongoing dialogue for a significant period of time. They have tried to come to a peaceful co-existence. They were invited and were pleased to participate in the Federal Magistrate's settlement/mediation discussions involving the Federal lawsuit. They believed they had input that led to the best results for Kingswood, the City of Carmel and Martin Marietta. He believed six members from the Kingswood Board and/or Mining Committee attended the mine tours and learned a great deal about the mining operation. As mentioned, he estimated 45 to 50 households were represented at the Monday, July 14 meeting (approximately 70 residents). At the end ofthe discussion, they carne away with a firm commitment that they could do a much better job working together and collaboratively to address the issues. They appreciated that Martin Marietta has kept its commitments with respect to prior applications as filed. Most notably, when the processing plant that used to be on Mueller North became an issue for some of the border residents on both the east side and the south side of Kingswood, Martin Marietta had an expense of about $3 million to move that processing plant to the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway. From time to time it can be heard, but it is clearly a significant gain from the past. From these ongoing discussions, they are convinced, at this point in time, that they are at a better position to work through a process by which they can work directly with Martin Marietta to resolve future issues. With respect to the settlement agr~ement with respect to blasting, he was more confident Kingswood has fewer concerns about blasting levels. They acknowledge and appreciate that the blasting is not the impact it once was. They trust the City representatives and Martin Marietta will work toward a resolution with Kingswood's input. He felt this agreement for the open pit blasting and the underground mining application provided benefits to everyone. They are pleased they will not be mining on the property that is the Carmel Sand Plant. That would be of great concern to Kingswood if open pit mining was iinmediately to the east. They are pleased to know what will happen to Mueller North once the operation is completed. As a result of those things and as the President of Kings wood Homeowners Association, he is authorized to say they no longer oppose the open pit or underground mining application. It is their intent to continue to work with Martin Marietta and the City, when appropriate, to address any issues. He wanted to express their gratitude to the City, its attorneys and representatives, and its Staff for making themselves available for various discussions. Often times on short notice, they took phone calls at 9:00 and 10:00 at night. No Remonstrance. The Public Hearing was closed. Page 5 of9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17, 2008 Mrs. Barton-Holmes gave the Department Report. As noted by the Petitioner, this is a continuation of an existing mining operation that is currently ongoing to the south. If this request is approved, it will permit the mining operations farther to the north and to the east. In reading the information provided by the Petitioner, the approximate dimensions of the mine total in depth about 250 feet at several levels, similar to the existing underground mine that some participants have toured. The proposed method is the room and pillar method which leaves large sections oflimestone in place to support the surface operations above ground. The mining consultant has also read through all the information and prepared the main body of the comparison chart. He has also reviewed the information provided in the application packet and expects that the proposed mining method would not cause any significant surface subsidence or any other negative surface impacts because the underground operation would be confined to the site. Any negative impact on surrounding areas, coupled with the method of mining, the location arid the commitments, would be significantly minimized. The proposed petition is also part of the pending settlement agreement which will be.discussed later in this meeting. She summarized briefly the requirements of reviewing a special use request. The site is within the special flood hazard area. It is also partly within a floodplain, so development that involves any kind of structure is very limited. Given that and given what lies underneath ,the site, the site is considered uniquely suited for this type of use. There will not be additional infrastructuie with regards to buildings or machinery or any significant increase in traffic because it is not so much an expansion,ofthe use as an extension of the use. With regards to the final use, because it is on a partial floodplain it is anticipated water will be allowed to fill up the site. The City anticipates the lake to the north being a positive addition, both as a visual amenity and as a method of recharging the City aquifers. Several City Departments, Parks, Utilities, Department of COrnnlunity Services, have all worked extensively with the Petitioner. The Department recommended positive consideration ofthe request if the Board also approves the pending settlement agreement subject to the recording of the commitments provided by the Petitioner for the underground and surface mining. Mr. Hawkins ,asked if there was any reason to believe these pits would not fill and hold water. He wanted to make sure they would not be two big holes. One subdivision has had some problems and needed a lining to hold the water in. Mr. Weiss stated they anticipated they would fill and hold water. Mr. Hawkins asked to see the west boundary of the mining property. Mr. Phears believed it went to the old River Road. It does not go west of Gray Road. Mr. Tiberi pointed it out on the mine plan. Comments were made away from the microphones regarding the boundaries. Mr. Molitor appeared before the Parks Board atone of their regular meetings. By motion, the Parks Board decided they did not have an interest in developing any park or recreational facility on that property. The settlement agreement does not call for any development of the property. It provides that there shall be no public access to the property that will be donated to the City. Mr. Hawkins asked if the settlement agreement extends west beyond Gray Road. Were there any intentions of surfacing mining for limestone on that property? Comments were made away from the microphones regarding the property west of Gray Road~ Page 6 of9 D LJ o u u u Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17, 2008 Mr. Weiss stated the property west of Gray Road has a lake on it for water retention, not mining. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 08030032 SU, Mueller Property South Underground Limestone Operation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Potasnik and APPROVED 5-0, subject to recording of commitments for.the settlement agreement (as presented by the applicant). Settlement Agreement Mr. Molitor stated by State law the Board is not required to take a ballot on the settlement agreement, although the Rules of Procedure for the BZA Board require a ballot. He suggested a motion be made to waive the Rules with regard to voting by ballot. That would enable the Board members to vote by a show of hands. Mr. Hawkins asked if the Settlement Agreement covered any of the property west of Gray Road and Williamson Run for what could and could not be done there, since it is south of 1061h Street. Mr. Molitor stated that property is not covered by the Judge's ruling nor is it covered by the settlement agreement. That property would be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinan.ce, which pursuant to the settlement agreement, Martin Marietta had obligated itself to comply with. Mr. Phears stated ifthe Board wanted to propose an additional condition there be no open pit mining on the property west of Gray Road, they had no objection. Mr. Hawkins just wanted to make sure everyone was reading the settlement agreement the same. Mr. Phears stated it is grandfathered property that the Hazel Dell Parkway agreement would apply to, but they have no intention of open pit mining. It could be included as a condition. Mr. Molitor stated the existing lake on the west side of Gray Road would be grandfathered property. But any property that Martin Marietta did not own in 1997 would certainly not be grandfathered. Mr. Phears was referring to the lake. Mr. Molitor did not see how they could mine the surface of the lake. Mr. Ph ears said they could pump it down and mine it, but they did not intend to. Mr. Potasnik moved to suspend the Rules requiring a written Findings of Fact ballot sheet and to vote by a show of hands. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve the Settlement Agreement subject to no open pit mining on the property west of Gray Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Potasnik and APPROVED 5-0. Mr. Weiss stated the Board had approved the Settlement Agreement. Should the BZA Board also approve the original open pit application with the commitments that were submitted? Mr. Molitor felt the original petition was deemed approved by the approval of the settlement agreement and that was how the Board had viewed this. Page 7 of9 Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals July 17, 2008 Mr. Weiss asked if there should be another Findings pursuant to the Statute. He would hate for someone to attack the decision because there were not Findings backing up the original petition. A five minute recess was taken for Legal Counsels to discuss the Findings. D Mr. Molitor stated that after discussion with Counsel and for caution, he recommended the Board make a motion to approve the open pit application that was the subject ofthis lawsuit and delegate to Staff and Legal Counsel the authority to prepare written Findings of Fact and have those duly filed in the records after obtaining the BZA President's signature. Mr. Hawkins asked ifthere were any reservation about any of the commitments being different between the settlement and the petition as it was originally filed. Mr. Molitor pointed out the commitments were attached to the settlement agreement which has been duly approved. Mr. Hawkins clarified the settlement agreement would pre-empt anything that was in the original petition. Mrs. Plavchak asked who was responsible for making sure there was water in the lake after the reclamation. Mr. Weiss stated that Martin Marietta had submitted a reclamation plan that is backed up by a bond, so essentially there is assurance the reclamation plan at the end of the mining will be followed. ~ Mr. Phears pointed out there were extensive hydrology studies and there is a report in the record. Mr. Hollibaugh had discussions with John Duffy, Director of the Utilities Department. Mr. Duffy wanted to make sure everyone understood that because of the direct interface between the City's aquifer and the surface water there would always be fluctuation in the lakes. In times of draught and heavy rains there would be graduations according to the rainfall during the year. Mr. Hawkins moved to approve Docket No. 05090003 SU, Martin Marietta open pit, delegating the Findings of Fact to Legal Counsel for the President's signature. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 5.0. Mr. Babb felt it was important to say a couple ofthings. There was extensive discovery that took place before the sununary judgment motion was filed and also with respect to the forthcoming summary judgment motion that would have been filed on the Section 1983 claim and on the writ. First, he not only represented the BZA Board, but he also represented the City and the Mayor. With respect to the allegations, obviously this Board did nothing wrong. There was extensive discovery on that and he wanted to make that cleat. The allegations were made in good faith and Martin Marietta needed to defend its interests. This Board did nothing wrong in all of the discovery that was done. It is also important to understand with respect to what the Mayor did. The Mayor had a constitutional right to ru petition the government under the First Amendment. It is a lesser known right as opposed to First Amendment right of speech. In case it ever comes up again, he wanted the Board to know there was nothing wrong with the Mayor standing up in his individual capacity and offering his opinion on a particular issue. With respect to the Department of Community Services interaction with the Mayor, Page 8 of9 u L u Carole! Board of Zomng Appeals July 17, 2008 again from a legal perspective in his opinion and the research he did in the cases he looked at, there is nothing wrong with the Mayor interacting with one ofms departments. In the job description, Mike Hollibaugh is in charge of tbat department and reports to the Mayor. In fact there was even a situation in this particular case when the Department of Community Services issued a report recommending favorable consideration that was supported by the Mayor and this Board operated independently. He wanted to thank Russ Sveen for making sure the adjacent property owners' interests were taken care of Chris Wolcott was also making sure that Kingswood' s ultimate positions were protected in advance. He also appreciated ZeffWeiss, Wayne Phears and Tom Mixdorfwho did an able job representing their client. Mr. Molitor circulated pages for the settlement agreement for the individual Board member's signatures. He also expressed his appreciation to the Board members for their patience and diligence on behalf of the community. J. New Business There was no New Business. K. Adjournment Mr. Hawkins moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM. ~ James R. Hawkins, President .~~. Connie Tingley, Secr~ ry . S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2008/20080717.rtf Page 9 of9